Relationship quality evaluation and reporting

ABSTRACT

A system for relationship information evaluation and management. The system incorporates relationship quality parameters that define the contextual parameters of quality, which are mutually validated and are accepted by the respective parties within an existing or prospective relationship. A computer, computing device, written documents or other means are used to capture the perspectives of each person, representative, or entity within the relationship or prospective relationship. This can be done automatically, on a random, periodic, or scheduled basis, or upon manual initiation. The information or data may then be analyzed and coalesced into a meaningful whole (or segments thereof), which may then be archived, printed, reported, and presented to one or both of the parties, or others. The information can be processed and stored based upon certain parameters, attributes, types or classes or relationships, so as to provide history, patterns, trends, alerts, warnings, analyses or comparisons concerning relationship quality. All information collected can be further applied or aggregated within an organization (or beyond, such as in a general locality or marketplace).

This application claims benefit of and priority to U.S. ProvisionalApplication No. 61/374,601, filed Aug. 17, 2011, and is entitled to thatfiling date for priority. The specification, figures and completedisclosure of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/374,601 areincorporated herein by specific reference for all purposes.

FIELD OF INVENTION

This invention relates to a system and method for evaluating andreporting on the quality and status of relationships, including, but notlimited to, workplace relationships.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

There are many forms of relationships important to individual lives,businesses and society. Examples of such relationships are marriage andfamily, work and business, and institutional and political. Theserelationships vary in their quality, i.e., the combination of therespective value or benefit the respective parties are gaining(separately and together) from the relationship at any period or momentof time. However, information as to the current circumstances of qualityand the trends of quality within these relationships typically may besomewhat unknown or unconsidered, based upon limited, subjectiveperspectives, or include inaccurate assumptions by one, or both, of theparties.

Relationship quality, as described herein, refers to, within anaffiliation of, or contextual connection of, people, or people andentities, the measurement of the magnitude of value being gained fromthat affiliation at a moment or period in time, based upon acceptableparameters of benefit as separately determined by each party, thencombined holistically into a singular format that informs both parties,or others, for their benefit and utility.

The absence of continuously updated information of relationship qualityleads to lost opportunities and misunderstandings, as well as to acuteor chronic problems and unfortunate surprises within personal,commercial, institutional and political settings. There are attempts toaddress the problem historically; for example, workplaces use theconvention of periodic “performance reviews” in limited, unidirectionalattempts to convey the organization's perspective of quality from itsviewpoint to the worker, while separately, the organization may seek tolearn of the worker's viewpoint through “satisfaction surveys.”Unfortunately, these discrete approaches fail to accurately reveal therealities of the comprehensive and bidirectional nature of relationshipquality.

Furthermore, there are needs of other third parties or persons to havemore reliable and complete information about the quality ofrelationships within communities than is at present available. Examplesinclude, but are not limited to, organizational leaders or marriagecounselors.

In addition, in the absence of information about the quality of specificrelationships, it is not possible to enjoy the additional benefit ofusing collectively-gathered information as reference or comparison forevaluating or judging the relative quality of a relationship or group ofrelationships against other similar relationships. Similarly, thisinformation cannot be effectively used to better understand a particularrelationship or relationships. Information regarding the respectiveviews or perspectives of relationship quality would be of significantbenefit in advance of entering or consummating relationships. This wouldprovide value in various contexts, such as workplace hiring decisions,or premarital relationship prediction and decision guidance.

SUMMARY OF INVENTION

In various embodiments, the present invention comprises a system forrelationship information evaluation and management. In one embodiment,the system comprises an information construct or architectureincorporating relationship quality parameters that define the contextualparameters of quality, which are mutually validated and are accepted bythe respective parties (A, B) within an existing or prospectiverelationship. This is done from the viewpoints of each party'sdefinition of quality, whether the parties' respective views of quality(including requirements and needs) are symmetrical or asymmetrical innature. Each parameter provides a structure for each party to consider,express and input the magnitude of quality experiences for any point intime, or period of time.

A computer, computing device, written documents or other means are usedto capture the perspectives of each person, representative, or entitywithin the relationship or prospective relationship. This can be doneautomatically, on a random, periodic, or scheduled basis, or upon manualinitiation. This includes capturing each person's estimates of the otherperson's or entities' perspectives of quality within the relationship orprospective relationship, which may be based upon an informationconstruct formed from the information obtained. The information or datamay then be analyzed and coalesced into a meaningful whole (or segmentsthereof), which may then be archived, printed, reported, and presentedto one or both of the parties, or others. The information can beprocessed and stored based upon certain parameters, attributes, types orclasses or relationships, so as to provide history, patterns, trends,alerts, warnings, analyses or comparisons concerning relationshipquality. This may be done on an information platform or mechanism thatis neutral and independent of either party, and operates without biastoward any party.

In one exemplary embodiment, the present invention may be applied towork relationships existing between an organization and a worker or aprospective candidate. The system comprises a simple, yethighly-effective, means to capture, monitor/report and provide analyticsrelated to the quality of a workplace relationship, comprising anautomated, periodic, computer-based, online means to separately pollboth worker and the organization's representative, such as a manager orsupervisor, for their current viewpoints as to the quality of theirrelationship, as related to each party's respective view or perspectivefor each parameter of quality. Work relationship quality parameters forthe worker or candidate include, but are not limited to, the following:functional satisfaction or enjoyment; social satisfaction; and lifeeffects satisfaction. The worker also may be prompted to provide inputas to their current “flow status.”

The worker may optionally input additional categories of informationrelated to parameters that impact the quality of a workplacerelationship. Work relationship quality parameters for the organizationinclude, but are not limited to, the following: producing outcomes (workoutcomes, output, or productivity); conserving resources; and preventingrisks (risk reduction or minimization). Thus, also captured are eachparty's estimates and assumptions as to how well they are performing forthe other party, based on the other party's parameters of quality.

In one embodiment, the system offers five graphic choices of responsefor each contextual parameter of quality for each party. The five-pointscale may be presented numerically (e.g., 1 to 5), alphabetically (e.g.,A to E), or some other fashion (e.g., two thumbs up to two thumbs down).No alphanumeric data, narrative information, or commentary need beentered. The information may be collected periodically, such as weekly,monthly or quarterly, although some other time period may be used. Inaddition, the collection of information may be activated by either partyon demand in some instances.

The system also may collect responses from the worker with regard totheir perspective or opinion as to how well their leaders or supervisorcollectively performed in certain areas (such as communications,thought, energy, substance, attentiveness, and results). The worker alsomay be prompted to provide information as to how well the organization'sdesign enabled their work in certain areas (such as methods, workdesign, infrastructure and tools, and career competitiveness).

Similarly, the organization's representative is periodically polled asto how the worker has performed based on the organization's parametersof quality. The organization's representative also is prompted toprovide their input as what the work experiences for the worker hasbeen, based on the worker's quality parameters.

The system processes the information to achieve a unification, synthesisor integration that encompasses all applicable parameters. This becomesthe relationship quality (RQ) format for both parties, and for others.All information can be stored, manipulated, archived and accessed ineither a distributed or centralized database, or both.

After both parties provide their input, each receives a multi-facetedreport providing information within a standardized format displayinginformation regarding the present quality status of the workrelationship, as well as a timeline and trends as to the quality of therelationship. This monthly report may be the same for both parties. Inone embodiment, the report is named “Q_(R)”. The input from both partiesis shown graphically by a multi-layer hexagon. The number of layerscorresponds to the number of points in the scale (in the embodimentshown, five). Three of the sections of the hexagon correspond to theworker's quality parameters, while the remaining three sectionscorrespond to the organization's quality parameters. Flow status alsomay be shown. In other embodiments where a different number of qualityparameters are used, a different form of polygon or a circle may beused.

Each section's layers are colored from the center out to correspond tothe actual input. The fill color used may differ based upon the rating.For example, if the rating is a 4 or 5, then all four or five layers maybe colored green. If the rating is a 1, then the layer may be coloredred, to draw attention to the poor rating. Other colors, such as orange,blue, and the like, may be used.

Each party's input as to their opinion about the other party'sperspective on their respective quality measures also may be shown asdashed or dotted lines through the center of each section, extending outto the top of the layer corresponding to the rating. This permits theusers to easily compare and contrast the different perspectives on thesame relationship quality measures. These dashed lines can be hidden orshown by clicking on an icon or button on the screen.

The present quality (or RP threshold) ratio also may be shown. This is asimple ratio of the organizational perspective ratings total to theworker's personal perspective ratings total. In one embodiment, anyrating of a 1 or 2 may be excluded.

Rating trends may also be displayed graphically. In another embodiment,organizational users are able to select groups from the enterprise'sdatabase, from which analytic information is presented regarding aselected group of relationships, such as within an organization'scensus. A bar is shown representing the selected aggregate average for apopulation input for the parameters for which input was sought (asdiscussed above).

All information collected can be further applied or aggregated within anorganization (or beyond, such as in a general locality or marketplace)to provide referential and comparative relationship quality informationabout workers, organization, industries, professions, work roles, andthe like. This information may be used for indices, history,comparisons, data mining and established standards related to creatingand sustaining the quality work relationships.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows a system in accordance with an embodiment of the presentinvention.

FIG. 2 shows an information collection or polling screen for anindividual worker.

FIG. 3 shows an information collection or polling screen for a workplacemanager.

FIG. 4 shows an example of a relationship quality report.

FIG. 5 shows another example of a relationship quality report.

FIG. 6 shows an example of an analytical chart for a group ofrelationships.

FIG. 7 shows another example of an analytical chart for a group ofrelationships.

FIGS. 8 through 10 show examples of aggregated relationship qualityreports.

FIG. 11 shows a business process system in accordance with anotherexemplary embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 12 shows hand icons used in one type of polling interface.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENTS

In various embodiments, the present invention comprises a relationshipinformation system (RIS) with multiple components. A core component isthe architecture, structure, or group of organizing principle(s) ofrelationship quality, encompassing the primary criteria or parameters ofthe various multifaceted dimensions of value, needs, requirements, andaversions of the parties in the relationship (i.e., “qualityrequirements” or “QR”). The parties are periodically queried or polled,via a computer or computing device, regarding their QR, therebycapturing one or more party's present subjective perspective as to thedegree of needs satisfaction they are experiencing within therelationship (i.e., the portion of the QR applying or pertaining totheir needs, valued elements, and aversions). The information iscaptured, parsed, and stored, and can be accessed under appropriatecircumstances, such as by periodically being displayed or presented toone or more of the parties based upon the applicable QR construct.

In the exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the present systemcomprises an information construct or architecture incorporatingrelationship quality parameters that define the contextual parameters ofquality, which are mutually validated and are accepted by the respectiveparties (A, B) within an existing or prospective relationship. This isdone from the viewpoints of each party's definition of quality, whetherthe parties' respective views of quality (including requirements andneeds) are symmetrical or asymmetrical in nature. Each parameterprovides a structure for each party to consider, express and input themagnitude of quality experiences for any point in time, or period oftime.

A computer, computing device, written documents or other means are usedto capture the perspectives of each person, representative, or entitywithin the relationship or prospective relationship through aperspective capture panel 10, 12. This can be done automatically, on arandom, periodic, or scheduled basis, or upon manual initiation. Thisincludes capturing each person's estimates of the other person's orentities' perspectives of quality within the relationship or prospectiverelationship, which may be based upon an information construct formedfrom the information obtained.

The information or data may then be analyzed and coalesced into ameaningful whole (or segments thereof), which may then be archived,printed, reported, and presented to one or both of the parties, orothers 14. The information can be processed and stored based uponcertain parameters, attributes, types or classes or relationships, so asto provide history, patterns, trends, alerts, warnings, analyses orcomparisons concerning relationship quality. This may be done on aninformation platform or mechanism that is neutral and independent ofeither party, and operates without bias toward any party.

In one exemplary embodiment, the present invention may be applied towork relationships existing between an organization and a worker or aprospective candidate. The system comprises a simple, yethighly-effective, means to capture, monitor/report and provide analyticsrelated to the quality of a workplace relationship. This is in contrastto prior art “employee satisfaction surveys” and “performance reviews.”Neither of the latter separately offers accurate information correlatingto the foundational quality of a workplace relationship, as both areone-sided, disconnected, and independent in information, application andconsideration. The present invention rectifies this problem with aninformation system that unifies, captures and reports work relationshipquality in a neutral, unbiased manner by defining and synthesizing thebi-directional needs and requirements of each party. This embodiment isinclusive of the significant asymmetry of the respective universalrelationship parameters related to work relationship quality.

In one embodiment, as seen in FIGS. 2 and 3, the system comprises anautomated, periodic, computer-based, online means to separately pollboth worker and the organization's representative, such as a manager orsupervisor, for their current viewpoints as to the quality of theirrelationship, as related to each party's respective view or perspectivefor each parameter of quality. Work relationship quality parameters forthe worker or candidate include, but are not limited to, the following:functional satisfaction or enjoyment 20; social satisfaction 30; andlife effects satisfaction 40. The worker also may be prompted to provideinput as to their current “flow status.” 44.

The worker may optionally input additional categories of informationrelated to parameters that impact the quality of a workplacerelationship. Work relationship quality parameters for the organizationinclude, but are not limited to, the following: producing outcomes (workoutcomes, output, or productivity) 50; conserving resources 60; andpreventing risks (risk reduction or minimization) 70. Thus, alsocaptured are each party's estimates and assumptions as to how well theyare performing for the other party, based on the other party'sparameters of quality 50, 60, 70.

In one embodiment, referred to herein as “rpCamera” (see FIGS. 2 and 3),the system offers five graphic choices of response for each contextualparameter of quality for each party. The five-point scale may bepresented numerically (e.g., 1 to 5), alphabetically (e.g., A to E), orsome other fashion (e.g., two thumbs up to two thumbs down, as shown inFIG. 12). No alphanumeric data, narrative information, or commentaryneed be entered. The information may be collected periodically, such asweekly, monthly or quarterly, although some other time period may beused. In addition, the collection of information may be activated byeither party on demand in some instances.

The system also may collect responses from the worker with regard totheir perspective or opinion as to how well their leaders or supervisorcollectively performed in certain areas (such as communications,thought, energy, substance, attentiveness, and results) 80. The workeralso may be prompted to provide information as to how well theorganization's design enabled their work in certain areas (such asmethods, work design, infrastructure and tools, and careercompetitiveness) 90.

Similarly, as shown in FIG. 3, the organization's representative isperiodically polled as to how the worker has performed based on theorganization's parameters of quality 50, 60, 70. The organization'srepresentative also is prompted to provide their input as what the workexperiences for the worker has been, based on the worker's qualityparameters 20, 30, 40.

The system processes the information to achieve a unification, synthesisor integration that encompasses all applicable parameters. This becomesthe relationship quality (RQ) format for both parties, and for others.All information can be stored, manipulated, archived and accessed ineither a distributed or centralized database, or both.

After both parties provide their input, each receives a multi-facetedreport providing information within a standardized format displayinginformation regarding the present quality status of the workrelationship, as well as a timeline and trends as to the quality of therelationship. This monthly report may be the same for both parties. Inone embodiment, the report is named “Q_(R)”, as seen in FIG. 4.

In the embodiment shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, the input from both parties isshown graphically by a multi-layer hexagon. The number of layerscorresponds to the number of points in the scale (in the embodimentshown, five). Three of the sections of the hexagon correspond to theworker's quality parameters 120, 130, 140, while the remaining threesections correspond to the organization's quality parameters 150, 160,170. Flow status 144 also may be shown. In other embodiments where adifferent number of quality parameters are used, a different form ofpolygon or a circle may be used.

Each section's layers are colored from the center out to correspond tothe actual input. For example, the worker (“Glenn Gaston”) has given hisfunctional satisfaction a two-thumb's up score, which is translated tobe a 5 on a five-point scale. This is graphically represented bycoloring the first four layers of the section of the hexagoncorresponding to functional satisfaction. As shown, the numeric ratingcan be in or near the section. The fill color used may differ based uponthe rating. For example, if the rating is a 4 or 5, then all four orfive layers may be colored green. If the rating is a 1, then the layermay be colored red, to draw attention to the poor rating. Other colors,such as orange, blue, and the like, may be used.

Each party's input as to their opinion about the other party'sperspective on their respective quality measures also may be shown. InFIGS. 4 and 5, for example, these are shown as dashed or dotted linesthrough the center of each section, extending out to the top of thelayer corresponding to the rating. For example, in FIG. 4, theorganization's representative (“Karen F.”) responded that Glenn Gaston'sfunctional satisfaction was a 4, which is shown as a dashed lineextending to the fourth layer. This permits the users to easily compareand contrast the different perspectives on the same relationship qualitymeasures. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 5, these dashed lines can behidden or shown by clicking on an icon or button 190 on the screen.

The present quality (or RP threshold) ratio 180 also may be shown. Thisis a simple ratio of the organizational perspective ratings total to theworker's personal perspective ratings total. In one embodiment, anyrating of a 1 or 2 may be excluded.

Rating trends 198 may also be displayed graphically, as seen in FIG. 4.In the embodiment shown, a simple trend line is shown for the ratingsinput for the first half of a year.

In another embodiment, organizational users are able to select groupsfrom the enterprise's database, from which analytic information ispresented regarding a selected group of relationships, such as within anorganization's census (as shown in FIG. 6). A specific embodiment isreferred to herein as the rpAnalytics module or the rpScoreboard. A baris shown representing the selected aggregate average for a populationinput for the parameters for which input was sought (as discussedabove). In the example shown, the input was from 18 (i.e., n=18)radiologists at an organization. FIG. 7 shows a variation of this chart.

As seen in FIGS. 8 to 10, all information collected can be furtherapplied or aggregated within an organization (or beyond, such as in ageneral locality or marketplace) to provide referential and comparativerelationship quality information about workers, organization,industries, professions, work roles, and the like. This information maybe used for indices, history, comparisons, data mining and establishedstandards related to creating and sustaining the quality workrelationships. FIG. 8, for example, shows an aggregate snapshot foreighteen workers, while FIG. 9 shows a detailed table of input from eachof the workers. FIG. 10 shows the aggregate ratings trend lines overtime.

In another embodiment, the above system may be applied within anorganization by a business process known as rpProcess (see FIG. 11).This includes, but is not limited to, preliminary orientation anddiscussion, and also can optionally include improvement, enrichment andremedial options made possible by the rpMat and rpWeaver systems andmodules, which apply the above information constructs for facilitatingdialog and agreement between worker/candidate and the organization.

In various embodiments, the system incorporates rules, useridentification and rights administration system to drive optimal userbehaviors (such as neither party being able to view report until bothcomplete) and to support the varied needs of organizations, individualsand commercial business models. Computer-based embodiments may make useof local, enterprise, distributed or hosted/cloud database softwareplatforms (such as, but not limited to, SQL, FileMaker, OpenBase), andalso may make use of data visualization schemes and utilities, as wellas data mining, for research and other purposes. While the system isdescribed above in the context of a computer-based online embodiment,the present invention also can be deployed within an organization byprint/paper based systems, or hybrids thereof.

Further information concerning reciprocal publishing, the RelationshipWeaver, and work role yields management system may be found in U.S. Pat.Nos. 7,191,176; 7,519,594; and 7,822,634; and in U.S. patent applicationSer. Nos. 11/772,026 and 12/269,840, all of which are incorporatedherein by specific reference in their entireties for all purposes.

While the invention has been discussed above in the context of ahierarchical workplace relationship (i.e., worker and supervisor), thesystem also may be used for non-employment relationships andnon-hierarchical relationships. Thus, for example, embodiments of thepresent invention may be used for laterals peers, teams and groups inaffiliation with each other, customers and vendors, marriages, and manyother forms of relationships. It also can provide online means for “n”number of communities or peers to define and express the criticalparameters (i.e., key indicators) of their relationship(s), periodicallypoll and be appraised of the quality of each parameter, and have valuedhistorical or predictive information utilities be provided for eachparameter.

In order to provide a context for the various aspects of the invention,the following discussion provides a brief, general description of asuitable computing environment in which the various aspects of thepresent invention may be implemented. A computing system environment isone example of a suitable computing environment, but is not intended tosuggest any limitation as to the scope of use or functionality of theinvention. A computing environment may contain any one or combination ofcomponents discussed below, and may contain additional components, orsome of the illustrated components may be absent. Various embodiments ofthe invention are operational with numerous general purpose or specialpurpose computing systems, environments or configurations. Examples ofcomputing systems, environments, or configurations that may be suitablefor use with various embodiments of the invention include, but are notlimited to, personal computers, laptop computers, computer servers,computer notebooks, hand-held devices, microprocessor-based systems,multiprocessor systems, TV set-top boxes and devices, programmableconsumer electronics, cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs),network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, embedded systems,distributed computing environments, and the like.

Embodiments of the invention may be implemented in the form ofcomputer-executable instructions, such as program code or programmodules, being executed by a computer or computing device. Program codeor modules may include programs, objections, components, data elementsand structures, routines, subroutines, functions and the like. These areused to perform or implement particular tasks or functions. Embodimentsof the invention also may be implemented in distributed computingenvironments. In such environments, tasks are performed by remoteprocessing devices linked via a communications network or other datatransmission medium, and data and program code or modules may be locatedin both local and remote computer storage media including memory storagedevices.

In one embodiment, a computer system comprises multiple client devicesin communication with at least one server device through or over anetwork. In various embodiments, the network may comprise the Internet,an intranet, Wide Area Network (WAN), or Local Area Network (LAN). Itshould be noted that many of the methods of the present invention areoperable within a single computing device.

A client device may be any type of processor-based platform that isconnected to a network and that interacts with one or more applicationprograms. The client devices each comprise a computer-readable medium inthe form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory such as read only memory(ROM) and random access memory (RAM) in communication with a processor.The processor executes computer-executable program instructions storedin memory. Examples of such processors include, but are not limited to,microprocessors, ASICs, and the like.

Client devices may further comprise computer-readable media incommunication with the processor, said media storing program code,modules and instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause theprocessor to execute the program and perform the steps described herein.Computer readable media can be any available media that can be accessedby computer or computing device and includes both volatile andnonvolatile media, and removable and non-removable media.Computer-readable media may further comprise computer storage media andcommunication media. Computer storage media comprises media for storageof information, such as computer readable instructions, data, datastructures, or program code or modules. Examples of computer-readablemedia include, but are not limited to, any electronic, optical,magnetic, or other storage or transmission device, a floppy disk, harddisk drive, CD-ROM, DVD, magnetic disk, memory chip, ROM, RAM, EEPROM,flash memory or other memory technology, an ASIC, a configuredprocessor, CDROM, DVD or other optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes,magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices,or any other medium from which a computer processor can readinstructions or that can store desired information. Communication mediacomprises media that may transmit or carry instructions to a computer,including, but not limited to, a router, private or public network,wired network, direct wired connection, wireless network, other wirelessmedia (such as acoustic, RF, infrared, or the like) or othertransmission device or channel. This may include computer readableinstructions, data structures, program modules or other data in amodulated data signal such as a carrier wave or other transportmechanism. Said transmission may be wired, wireless, or both.Combinations of any of the above should also be included within thescope of computer readable media. The instructions may comprise codefrom any computer-programming language, including, for example, C, C++,C#, Visual Basic, Java, and the like.

Components of a general purpose client or computing device may furtherinclude a system bus that connects various system components, includingthe memory and processor. A system bus may be any of several types ofbus structures, including, but not limited to, a memory bus or memorycontroller, a peripheral bus, and a local bus using any of a variety ofbus architectures. Such architectures include, but are not limited to,Industry Standard Architecture (ISA) bus, Micro Channel Architecture(MCA) bus, Enhanced ISA (EISA) bus, Video Electronics StandardsAssociation (VESA) local bus, and Peripheral Component Interconnect(PCI) bus.

Computing and client devices also may include a basic input/outputsystem (BIOS), which contains the basic routines that help to transferinformation between elements within a computer, such as during start-up.BIOS typically is stored in ROM. In contrast, RAM typically containsdata or program code or modules that are accessible to or presentlybeing operated on by processor, such as, but not limited to, theoperating system, application program, and data.

Client devices also may comprise a variety of other internal or externalcomponents, such as a monitor or display, a keyboard, a mouse, atrackball, a pointing device, touch pad, microphone, joystick, satellitedish, scanner, a disk drive, a CD-ROM or DVD drive, or other input oroutput devices. These and other devices are typically connected to theprocessor through a user input interface coupled to the system bus, butmay be connected by other interface and bus structures, such as aparallel port, serial port, game port or a universal serial bus (USB). Amonitor or other type of display device is typically connected to thesystem bus via a video interface. In addition to the monitor, clientdevices may also include other peripheral output devices such asspeakers and printer, which may be connected through an outputperipheral interface.

Client devices may operate on any operating system capable of supportingan application of the type disclosed herein. Client devices also maysupport a browser or browser-enabled application. Examples of clientdevices include, but are not limited to, personal computers, laptopcomputers, personal digital assistants, computer notebooks, hand-helddevices, cellular phones, mobile phones, smart phones, pagers, digitaltablets, Internet appliances, and other processor-based devices. Usersmay communicate with each other, and with other systems, networks, anddevices, over the network through the respective client devices.

Thus, it should be understood that the embodiments and examplesdescribed herein have been chosen and described in order to bestillustrate the principles of the invention and its practicalapplications to thereby enable one of ordinary skill in the art to bestutilize the invention in various embodiments and with variousmodifications as are suited for particular uses contemplated. Eventhough specific embodiments of this invention have been described, theyare not to be taken as exhaustive. There are several variations thatwill be apparent to those skilled in the art.

What is claimed is:
 1. A machine for evaluating relationship quality,comprising: a processor or microprocessor coupled to a memory, whereinthe processor or microprocessor is programmed to: receive input from atleast one user from a first group and at least one user from a secondgroup for a rating for two or more selected relationship qualityparameters, wherein the relationship quality parameters for the firstgroup are different from the relationship quality parameters for thesecond group, the at least one user from the first group has arelationship with the second group, and the relationship qualityparameters are related to the relationship between the user from thefirst group and the second group; and display the input received in agraphical format, said graphical format comprising the presentation ofsaid relationship quality parameter ratings on a multi-layered polygonwith a center and multiple vertices, each relationship quality parameterassigned to a wedge of said polygon, each wedge defined by two adjacentvertices and the center; wherein each layer corresponds to a differentrating, with lower ratings near the center, and the layer correspondingto the input rating from the user for the group for that relationshipquality parameter is graphically indicated; and further wherein therelationship quality parameters for the first group are assigned toadjacent wedges on a first half of the polygon, and relationship qualityparameters for the second group are assigned to adjacent wedges on asecond half of the polygon.
 2. The machine of claim 1, wherein the atleast one user from the first group is prompted to provide rating inputfor relationship quality parameters applicable to them as a member ofthe first group, and to provide rating input for relationship qualityparameters applicable to the second group, in the context of therelationship between the at least one user from the first group and thesecond group.
 3. The machine of claim 1, wherein the input is receivedon a monthly basis.
 4. The machine of claim 1, wherein the second groupcomprises an employer organization, and the first group comprisesworkers for the employer organization.
 5. The machine of claim 1,wherein the relationship quality parameters for the first group comprisefunctional satisfaction, social satisfaction, and life effects, and therelationship quality parameters for the second group comprise producingoutcomes, conserving resources, and preventing risks.
 6. The machine ofclaim 1, wherein there are three relationship quality parameters for thefirst group and three relationship quality parameters for the secondgroup.
 7. The machine of claim 1, wherein there are five ratingspossible for each relationship quality parameter.
 8. The machine ofclaim 1, further wherein the input from multiple users from the firstgroup are aggregated and displayed graphically.
 9. The machine of claim1, wherein the processor or microprocessor is further programmed to:calculate a present quality ratio as the ratio of the total of theratings from the user from the first group for relationship qualityparameters for the first group, to the total of the ratings from theuser of the second group for relationship quality parameters applicableto the second group.
 10. A method for evaluating relationship quality,comprising the steps of: receiving, using a processor or microprocessor,input from at least one user from a first group and at least one userfrom a second group for a rating for two or more selected relationshipquality parameters, wherein the relationship quality parameters for thefirst group are different from the relationship quality parameters forthe second group, the at least one user from the first group has arelationship with the second group, and the relationship qualityparameters are related to the relationship between the user from thefirst group and the second group; and displaying the input received in agraphical format, said graphical format comprising the presentation ofsaid relationship quality parameter ratings on a multi-layered polygonwith a center and multiple vertices, each relationship quality parameterassigned to a wedge of said polygon, each wedge defined by two adjacentvertices and the center; wherein each layer corresponds to a differentrating, with lower ratings near the center, and the layer correspondingto the input rating from the user for the group for that relationshipquality parameter is graphically indicated; and further wherein therelationship quality parameters for the first group are assigned toadjacent wedges on a first half of the polygon, and relationship qualityparameters for the second group are assigned to adjacent wedges on asecond half of the polygon.
 11. The method of claim 10, wherein thesecond group comprises an employer organization, and the first groupcomprises workers for the employer organization.
 12. The method of claim10, wherein the relationship quality parameters for the first groupcomprise functional satisfaction, social satisfaction, and life effects,and the relationship quality parameters for the second group compriseproducing outcomes, conserving resources, and preventing risks.
 13. Themethod of claim 10, wherein there are three relationship qualityparameters for the first group and three relationship quality parametersfor the second group.
 14. The method of claim 10, wherein there are fiveratings possible for each relationship quality parameter.
 15. The methodof claim 10, further wherein the input from multiple users from thefirst group are aggregated and displayed graphically.
 16. The method ofclaim 10, further comprising the step of: calculating a present qualityratio as the ratio of the total of the ratings from the user from thefirst group for relationship quality parameters for the first group, tothe total of the ratings from the user of the second group forrelationship quality parameters applicable to the second group.